Question for UK members

[Thumbcocker]

I don't want this to turn into a urination competition, I am asking a sincere question and hope maybe some of you can answer this. It is often stated in the context of firearms rights that the UK does not recognize self defense. My question is: is that accurate? A long time ago I read some of Blackstone's commentary on the laws of England and IIRC it was a pretty well settled point that lethal force was, historically at least, justified in a variety of situations and that included preventingfelonies. I realize that was a long time ago.


So to rephrase; what is the status of self defense in the UK, and if it underwent a significant change when and how did that occur.

[Col4570]

When applying for a Firearms or Shotgun Certificates,reasons for the application are requested.One cannot state the reason being Protection.Firearms are issued for sporting or target purposes.As for defending yourself and family in a possibly life saving situation,lethal force is not encouraged but each case would be viewed on its merits.An outstanding case was when a Farmer (Tony Martin) heard someone breaking into his home,he challenged them as they came up the stairs in the dark.They made threats to his life so he Fired his Shotgun into the Darkness,killing one and wounding the other.He served a short Prison sentence but public outcry and petitions won him freedom.It is worth saying that the wounded perp later on continued his criminal career receiving further sentences for his crimes.Defending oneself in recent years has been looked upon with much sympathy but lethal methods are still frowned upon.

[hithard]

My son in law is a barrister, loves to come to the land of liberty and shoot, alot! He always stresses the fact that your better to be beat to an inch from death than to kill the perpetrators or even cause them more harm than they have caused you because of the courts view. The courts view both sides as violence and either way it has no place in their society.

[hithard]

duplicate post

[Ballistics in Scotland]

When applying for a Firearms or Shotgun Certificates,reasons for the application are requested.One cannot state the reason being Protection.Firearms are issued for sporting or target purposes.As for defending yourself and family in a possibly life saving situation,lethal force is not encouraged but each case would be viewed on its merits.An outstanding case was when a Farmer (Tony Martin) heard someone breaking into his home,he challenged them as they came up the stairs in the dark.They made threats to his life so he Fired his Shotgun into the Darkness,killing one and wounding the other. He served a short Prison sentence but public outcry and petitions won him freedom.It is worth saying that the wounded perp later on continued his criminal career receiving further sentences for his crimes.Defending oneself in recent years has been looked upon with much sympathy but lethal methods are still frowned upon.

This is not entirely accurate, and the issue is hedged around with myth. I have the grant-or-renewal forms for both certificates in front of me at the moment. The law is extremely plain, that the applicant for a firearm certificate (which nowadays means almost entirely rifles) must fulfill two conditions. He must have a good reason for having the firearms, and he must be capable of doing so without being a danger to the public or the peace. It is for him to demonstrate the good reason, which will usually involve showing club membership or permission to shoot on suitable land and self-defence is not an admissible reason.

Usually the certificate will come with a condition on first being granted, limiting the use of the firearm to land which the police have approved as suitable. But on renewal it will be removed, permitting use on any land which the shooter considers suitable, though he is responsible for excessive optimism. Use on game (with the landowner's permission) of a gun authorized only for target shooting on authorized ranges will land you in trouble, though probably far short of the maximum penalty the laws provides. Well in places, it is a very crowded island.

With a shotgun, however, public safety or the peace still applies, but the applicant doesn't have to state any reason, and the police are entitled to refuse only if they have reason to think he doesn't have one. It is rarely done, and is only likely in view of drastic physical impairment. Actually saying "I want it to shoot burglars" might well cause the public safety clause to be invoked, on the basis that the law on self-defence is likely to be exceeded. Of course thousands of people living in isolated houses do keep shotguns for personal protection. They haven't had to lie about it, and nobody takes much notice because of the extreme rarity of shooting people, or indeed the kind of attack that could justify it.

Of course being found in possession of a deceased or severely damaged burglar is an extremely troublesome situation, and should be. The Crown Prosecution Service also have a two-part test: whether it seems likely that a crime was committed, and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. They might think a case should be tested in court, and it is a worrying time even if they decide not to. But the law on self-defence is clear. It is allowed, in proportion to the sort of danger in which you reasonably believe the assailant is placing you. That includes the use of a firearm against any deadly weapon. You don't even have to be right about the danger. If your neighbor gets so drunk after a day's forestry work that he accidentally walks into your house at night with his axe in his hand, or a burglar tries to intimidate you with a replica gun, he must take what comes.

There have been government statements reiterating all this, and the number of convictions has been exceedingly small, even in relation to the small number of British people who have shot, shot at or intimidated burglars with guns. I don't believe there has been a single case where there wasn't a definite element of retribution or waiting for the day. Tony Martin's case really proves just the opposite of what many believe. He had been deprived of his shotgun certificate some time previously, for shooting a hole in the car of a man he caught stealing apples from his orchard. The gun he used to shoot his burglars was illegally held and so was another found hidden in an outbuilding.

There were endless inconsistencies in Martin's testimony. In particular he appears to have cut away the stairs of his house to protect himself from burglars, and yet fired a shot while they were downstairs, followed them and fired again as they were escaping. He was convicted of murder and the judge made a rather recommendation that he serve not less than nine years. There was some outcry, mostly from those who knew least about him, but what counted was that in prison he was diagnosed with a collection of disorders, including paranoia and one of the autism disorders, and the sentence was reduced to five years for manslaughter, of which he served three. He could have had as much for the asking in his first trial, if he hadn't refused his lawyer's recommendation that he try for diminished responsibility.

Of course his burglars were repulsive habitual criminals. The survivor tried to sue for crippling injuries, until a newspaper photographed him running and cycling without difficulty. But Martin does not impress as one able to distinguish all that, in the dark, from two kids on their first escapade.

2½ months ago Martin was arrested for again illegally possessing of firearms, which resulted in no charges. It may have been an airgun, freely ownable by most people but subject to a lifetime ban after a jail sentence, and was held to be inoperable due to its condition. Still, with him above all others, skirting this close to reoffending surely indicates a really dangerous case of not having all his buttons sewn on. He isn't much on which to pin the idea that the British are forbidden legitimate self-defence.

[Col4570]

Well that puts paid to my brief explanation.:oops:

[Gavetta]

marvelous legal writing skills. by ballistics in scotland.cheers

[Ballistics in Scotland]

marvelous legal writing skills. by ballistics in scotland.cheers

Thank you for those kind words, although I should point out that I'm in no way legally qualified, and anybody in the UK who needs guidance on firearms licencing should refer to the mostly accurate and even-handed government document, which has evolved from what was originally guidance to police forces:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479794/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_Nov_2015_v16.pd f

It strikes most shooters as unnecessarily complicated and restrictive, and some of it can only have the slightest effect on public safety. What that is ever composed by anybody's government isn't? But it isn't like we get nothing for it. Home invasion by criminals armed to harm the householder is an extremely rare crime in the UK, mostly confined to the social intercourse between criminals themselves. Of course it drastically ups the ante on the penalty for simple burglary. But I think they don't much want to kill or maim the ordinary citizen because the ordinary citizen (inidividually or collectively, a.k.a. the law) doesn't much want to kill or maim them. It is very hard to distinguish the chicken from the egg on this one.

[stag15]

I think most commonwealth countries follow a similar system. Up here in Canada there is a similar set of rules, although it is my belief they are not as restrictive as the UK. You can defend yourself here IF you or a loved one is in danger, but defense has to be reasonable. No item can be carried on your person as a defensive weapon intended for use on people. Pepper spray, a gun, a knife, a cucumber. Whatever it is, it cant be seen as a weapon meant for people. Lethal force is likely justified if somebody is breaking into your house and about to assault you or a loved one with a weapon that is lethal. However it all goes on a case by case basis. If somebody is just stealing your TV and isn't about to kill you, and you shoot him in the back as he is running away, you are likely going on a vacation to Club Fed. But I might be wrong on this, I haven't been through the self defence lawyer circus yet.

[robg]

I we defend ourselves with firearms we would end up in jail ,we can only use rifles etc on approved ranges or on land we have permission to shoot over ,have to use expanding ammunition for game, not allowed expanding ammunition unless you have land to shoot over expanding bullets are counted as cartridges .not allowed expanding ammunition for target work.only to zero.this is just the tip of a buracratic ice berg .then we have to renew certificate s every 5years.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I think most commonwealth countries follow a similar system. Up here in Canada there is a similar set of rules, although it is my belief they are not as restrictive as the UK. You can defend yourself here IF you or a loved one is in danger, but defense has to be reasonable. No item can be carried on your person as a defensive weapon intended for use on people. Pepper spray, a gun, a knife, a cucumber. Whatever it is, it cant be seen as a weapon meant for people. Lethal force is likely justified if somebody is breaking into your house and about to assault you or a loved one with a weapon that is lethal. However it all goes on a case by case basis. If somebody is just stealing your TV and isn't about to kill you, and you shoot him in the back as he is running away, you are likely going on a vacation to Club Fed. But I might be wrong on this, I haven't been through the self defence lawyer circus yet.

As you describe it, that is exactly like the British situation, and I don't see much wrong with it. In the UK, remember, carrying a weapon intended for use against people drastically escalates how far things can go wrong for a criminal. The law doesn't deal well with theft of property which stands between you and disaster, such as equipment or records that can cause your business to fail, or the theft of your sandbags as floodwater reaches your doorstep. Killing someone over personal belongings should be repugnant anywhere. But there have been government statements, so far not contradicted by events, that the Crown Prosecution Service won't expect meticulous judgment in a householder surprised by a burglar in his home. But they will expect some.

[dtknowles]

As you describe it, that is exactly like the British situation, and I don't see much wrong with it. In the UK, remember, carrying a weapon intended for use against people drastically escalates how far things can go wrong for a criminal. The law doesn't deal well with theft of property which stands between you and disaster, such as equipment or records that can cause your business to fail, or the theft of your sandbags as floodwater reaches your doorstep. Killing someone over personal belongings should be repugnant anywhere. But there have been government statements, so far not contradicted by events, that the Crown Prosecution Service won't expect meticulous judgment in a householder surprised by a burglar in his home. But they will expect some.

I imagine that some of our criminal underclass would have a field day in England and Canada. I guess they don't know about the rules there. If they knew that their gang could just go jack a car then pull up to your house and take anything they wanted and you could not stop them then they could take off with the goods, stash the goods, ditch and burn the car.

Why doesn't this happen over there more often or does it. Are you aware of the Castle Doctrine. While it is repugnant to kill someone over trivial possessions it is not repugnant to kill someone who would violate the security and serenity of your home or person. It is not about the items that they are stealing is about the peace of mind they have stolen.

Our house was broken into during a popular spring festival that gets most of the town to turn out so almost nobody in the neighborhood was on the look out and it was back before security cameras were so popular. My wife was so shocked she could not figure out why they took the pillow cases until I explained that they used them as bags. The wife and daughters were so distressed we installed and alarm system.

I can see shooting someone for stealing my family's peace of mind.

Tim

[horsesoldier]

Mine as well DT. We had three chainsaws stolen in 2014 and I am still trying to get my piece of mind back. If wish we could change our laws to defend property

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I imagine that some of our criminal underclass would have a field day in England and Canada. I guess they don't know about the rules there. If they knew that their gang could just go jack a car then pull up to your house and take anything they wanted and you could not stop them then they could take off with the goods, stash the goods, ditch and burn the car.

Why doesn't this happen over there more often or does it. Are you aware of the Castle Doctrine. While it is repugnant to kill someone over trivial possessions it is not repugnant to kill someone who would violate the security and serenity of your home or person. It is not about the items that they are stealing is about the peace of mind they have stolen.

Our house was broken into during a popular spring festival that gets most of the town to turn out so almost nobody in the neighborhood was on the look out and it was back before security cameras were so popular. My wife was so shocked she could not figure out why they took the pillow cases until I explained that they used them as bags. The wife and daughters were so distressed we installed and alarm system.

I can see shooting someone for stealing my family's peace of mind.

Tim

As would a border Afghan just about anywhere civilized, until he learned that if you find a bit of dead ground where a week's patience will get you a clean shot at someone whose grandfather insulted yours, ingenuity and endurance don't count as an extenuating circumstance. It is what actually happens that counts, and what happens in the UK is that ordinary people have very little reason to fear deadly violence in their own homes.

I'm aware of the castle doctrine, and that it can be interpreted to mean a lot of different things. At the worst it is often seen (though perhaps not by the courts) as the right to shoot someone for trespassing, which may be a big thing to a small man as long as it doesn't actually happen - which usually it doesn't. On the other hand it can mean a couple of very reasonable things. One is a greater presumption that violent attack appeared likely, than a court would grant someone who was threats or subjected to minor violence in a public place. It also means (reasonably again) that you aren't obliged to leave the premises with which your greater familiarity gives you an advantage, both practically and in self confidence.

But I doubt very much whether there are many jurisdictions in which it entitles you to inflict major violence when you don't reasonably fear major violence.

[dtknowles]

..................It is what actually happens that counts, and what happens in the UK is that ordinary people have very little reason to fear deadly violence in their own homes.

I'm aware of the castle doctrine, and that it can be interpreted to mean a lot of different things. At the worst it is often seen (though perhaps not by the courts) as the right to shoot someone for trespassing, which may be a big thing to a small man as long as it doesn't actually happen - which usually it doesn't. On the other hand it can mean a couple of very reasonable things. One is a greater presumption that violent attack appeared likely, than a court would grant someone who was threats or subjected to minor violence in a public place. It also means (reasonably again) that you aren't obliged to leave the premises with which your greater familiarity gives you an advantage, both practically and in self confidence.

But I doubt very much whether there are many jurisdictions in which it entitles you to inflict major violence when you don't reasonably fear major violence.

So it would seem that you acknowledge that many in the U.S.A. have more cause to fear violence in their home or on the street than those in U.K. This greater threat is justification for a more permissive environment for the use of force in self defense. I think that is why the Courts here are pretty loose in interpreting "entitles you to inflict major violence when you don't reasonably fear major violence" they will mostly let you use deadly force and consider reasonable fear whenever you are confronted with any threat in your Castle. That, with the presumption of innocence if you shoot dead someone in your house the courts would have to prove you had not reason to be afraid. I could claim and unarmed intruder was trying to grab one of the book ends on the shelf with which to attack me as justification and probably be acquitted. Shoot a truly armed intruder, you don't even go to trial unless you shoot them in the back.

Your nice civilized U.K. can be happy with your laws but things are different over here, every person I know well has had some sort of home invasion or violent confrontation or sexual assault with the exception of a few children.

Do you think that the proliferation of people who carry over here is just for the fun of it. I guess we have more criminals and they are more aggressive than those in the U.K.

Tim

[Lead Fred]

Old bumper sticker here in the colonies

"Id rather be tried by 12, than carried by 6"

This is what happens when Godless people run your country.

The single most inherit thing in this world is the RIGHT to life.

So sorry your gobermint has disposable citizens

[hithard]

" which may be a big thing to a small man as long as it doesn't actually happen "

Throwing stones,

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The UK isn't at all deficient in petty crime for gain, or in criminals using extreme violence among themselves. There is no doubt that murder is higher in the US, and the proportion who just want to be single again, or hasten a legacy, is probably much the same anywhere. So the figures probably don't fully reflect the difference in those prepared to arm themselves to attack strangers. Any urban policeman will tell you that when such a criminal has a gun, information leaks out of the criminal fraternity at a much faster rate. There is nothing odd about a city casualty department doctor never having seen a bullet wound.

Still, the US murder rate is nothing like as high as the murder rate in many other countries. Without the slightest slur on the circles you move in, random events come in clusters, and none of the Americans I know has personal experience of violence. There are many greater causes of death against which people could protect themselves and don't. So although "for fun" would be a very flippant way of putting it, carrying a gun surely does something for people that giving up smoking, drinking, lethal dietary indulgence or keeping excessively informal company wouldn't.

There is also the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Criminals surely know that a sizeable proportion of the law-abiding public is prepared to kill them, and a small minority discuss the prospect gleefully and experience the sort of dreams unsuitable for mentioning here. So what does that make them do? Wait for one with his back turned, or wait till drink or drugs bluntens their caution.

[Thumbcocker]

It would be very interesting to know how many of the 10,000 or so gun homicides here each year involve criminals whacking each other.

[therealhitman]

marvelous legal writing skills. by ballistics in scotland.cheers

My ignore list fortunately spared me the (undoubtedly) long winded barely intelligible yet self important anti-American rant. But I must assume that is sarcasm you used there.

[therealhitman]

It would be very interesting to know how many of the 10,000 or so gun homicides here each year involve criminals whacking each other.

Remember, the Progs and Libs count suicides in these totals also.

[Col4570]

I have no doubt that at the rate immigrants are fleeing wars in the Middle East and finding their way to Europe,coupled with the ridiculous free movement of European nationals that the resulting demographics will trigger an increase in Violent Crime.At this present time there are masses of humanity on the move mostly made up of able bodied young and desperate men.We are already experiencing the results of this wave with sexual attacks on women by many who make up this hoard.Ethnic turf wars are breaking out amongst these peoples,Border barriers are being cut.One only has to see crime reports in the Newspapers to see the range of ethnic names amongst those brought to the courts.This recipe has an overall crime increase effect that may result in the indigenous adopting a siege mentality.In the cool light of day if one considers the situation the writing is on the wall and this very situation has been brought about by inadequate politicians not addressing the immediacy of the problem.

[Ola]

My ignore list fortunately spared me the (undoubtedly) long winded barely intelligible yet self important anti-American rant. But I must assume that is sarcasm you used there. Actually, it was one of the best explanations I have ever seen. Exactly what OP wanted to know.

[jonp]

Can someone explain why the law says "firearms and shotguns" and not just "firearms"?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

This has been a sensible discussion of a serious subject, in which very nearly everybody was very nearly spared from making fools of themselves.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Can someone explain why the law says "firearms and shotguns" and not just "firearms"?

It's a misnomer, based on a distinction the law makes. The firearm certificate, the licence for rifles, large-capacity repeating shotguns and the few remaining pistols requires the applicant to make a case for having each one. The shotgun certificate is available to about any adult without a serious criminal record who has premises for storing them. He can buy as many as he likes and shoot them anywhere that doesn't endanger people.

For other purposes, such as shooting or threatening someone, carrying it on a robbery or violating a ban imposed by criminal conviction, all firearms are alike, and defined as a "lethal barreled weapon." Courts have sometimes interpreted anything that can break the skin as just possibly being lethal. So it includes just about any airgun, although those giving up to 12ft./lb, for rifles and 6 for pistols, have required no licence.

A few years ago various pressure groups demanded a great reduction in permitted power for air rifles, and the government invited submissions (a word I have never liked) on more or less "give us arguments to get out of this one" basis. I pointed out that the proposed 1ft./lb limit was equivalent to a four-ounce weight being dropped on your foot from height of four feet, and you will most likely live. I also conducted a cadaver test on a leg of pork from my local supermarket, and found that my .177 air rifle at range zero penetrated about 1¼in., or about ¾in. through the supermarket's plastic membrane, which I consider roughly analogous to skin. No doubt I was only one of many, but the proposals vanished without trace.

[GOPHER SLAYER]

Without meaning to offend our good friends in the UK or anyone in her commonwealth countries, I am forever grateful that my direct ancestor, the man who gave me my name decided to leave England and come to the colony of Virginia two and a half centuries ago. It must have been difficult to watch your homeland slip away as you sailed toward what was largely a wilderness at that time and inhabited by unfriendly natives. I enjoy liberties that few people in the world share. The first thing dictators do when they come to power is disarm the civilian population, and they always use the same excuse, it's for your own protection. We will protect you. Just trust us.

[Thumbcocker]

I believe that the total of all firearm deaths in the US is about 30,000 per year with homicides being around 10,000.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Without meaning to offend our good friends in the UK or anyone in her commonwealth countries, I am forever grateful that my direct ancestor, the man who gave me my name decided to leave England and come to the colony of Virginia two and a half centuries ago. It must have been difficult to watch your homeland slip away as you sailed toward what was largely a wilderness at that time and inhabited by unfriendly natives. I enjoy liberties that few people in the world share. The first thing dictators do when they come to power is disarm the civilian population, and they always use the same excuse, it's for your own protection. We will protect you. Just trust us.

Of course it is right for anyone to be grateful for his ancestors' choice of country, as may we all. But if you read the threads from other boards, you will see Americans more convinced of actual or future despotism than Europeans have been for most of living memory. Of course few nations have ever made as dramatic a step forward as the US has done in civil rights of racial minorities in the 60s and 70s. But that is because there was a lot to step forward from, and the attitudes today aren't nearly as confined to the microcephalic section of the community as they are in Europe. I believe we still have one or two real, non-imaginary communists from the McCarthy era in the House of Lords, getting along splendidly with Conservative and hereditary fellow-members, and in their heyday people just got bored rather than passed on their words as a dreadful secret. There is also less pressure from the local community to conform with its standards. All of those things are liberties too.

Thumbcocker's figures must include suicide, which is legal, and it is hard to see the benefit of driving those unfortunate people to the methods which so often inflict a terrible death or moribund life. But the accident rate is surely higher than it needs to be. Firearms use is far from a rarity in the UK, and some accidents occur in gunrooms etc., but there is nothing odd about a year going by without a fatality actually in any of the shooting sports. It is mainly due to ideas on gun handling which existed before legislation of any kind, and is much lower than in the European nations which have mandatory firearms safety education and tests. A valid comparison might be that in the much more crowded United Kingdom, the rate of road traffic deaths (measured against vehicle-kilometers driven, the most valid standard) is about half that of the United States. What reduces death most, is remembering that death is a bad thing.

I think it is far from true that dictatorships disarm the population. I have seen a copy of the Nazi firearms law, and that certainly
didn't. There wasn't even a clause to say Jews were ineligible, although they probably didn't get many applying. Dictatorships also thrust firearms into the hands of conscripts, more numerous and less career-oriented than the soldiers of a democracy, and even including the dissident. My wife is German, and on reunification went east when most were going west, and I lived for many years close to the Iraqi borders of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. One had recently been part-way to a dictatorship, and the other a most extreme case, but both were awash with illicit firearms.

Dictatorships can handle that. What they really need is an ideology, and community enforcement of right attitudes.

[blackthorn]

Add to post #29----and a pair of rose colored glasses!

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Or send a list of witty and original insults. They appear to be in short supply here.

[NavyVet1959]

This has been a sensible discussion of a serious subject, in which very nearly everybody was very nearly spared from making fools of themselves.

But the thread is still young, so there's hope for it yet... :)

[NavyVet1959]

One thing that I know is that I'm glad I live in the Republic of Texas where we can use deadly force against not only people who want to kill us, but anyone trying to steal something from us. AND we can use deadly force in defense of a 3rd party and their property.

We can also use it in response to criminal mischief at night (e.g. gangbangers "tagging"), but unfortunately not enough people take advantage of this though. Then again, maybe the gangbangers realize this and we have slightly fewer gang markings than some of the other large cities.

[robg]

We have people here that have been brainwashed into believing things are to dangerous for ordinary people to own,guns knives etc rather than the obvious that people are dangerous .I wonder how long before we have to buy everything sliced so they can ban knives completely. We need a new crusade won't have to travel far this time.��

[Handloader109]

Good information, thanks for sharing. I think that one of the main differences between the new world and the old, is that there is an expectation that let's just wait until the authorities get here to sort it out and clean up the mess is the prevailing thought in Europe vs let's just take care of the situation and ourselves right here and now in the United States. Nothing wrong with either view, it is just reality. Call it socialism, if you want, we are seeing it on the east and west coasts. Someone can take better care of you than yourself. In my opinion, (yeah, this is all my opinion) the Authorities can only clean up the mess they will almost never been in the position to stop an attack or robbery.

[Mal Paso]

Seems a split occurred in the gene pool. Subjects stayed, independents left. Grandfather left Scotland hoping for better in America. Through hard work he did. Not surprising I think he made the right decision and have a certain amount of disgust for British "Civilization". As I recall we had a revolution about that.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Good information, thanks for sharing. I think that one of the main differences between the new world and the old, is that there is an expectation that let's just wait until the authorities get here to sort it out and clean up the mess is the prevailing thought in Europe vs let's just take care of the situation and ourselves right here and now in the United States. Nothing wrong with either view, it is just reality. Call it socialism, if you want, we are seeing it on the east and west coasts. Someone can take better care of you than yourself. In my opinion, (yeah, this is all my opinion) the Authorities can only clean up the mess they will almost never been in the position to stop an attack or robbery.

Which mess do you mean? Violent crime? It seems like how much danger of armed violence you are actually in, and what got you there, has some bearing on how well the mess is cleared up. The authorities are indeed rarely in a position to stop an attack or robbery, but a major reason for their existence is to reduce the incidence of attacks or robberies.

[Col4570]

Seems a split occurred in the gene pool. Subjects stayed, independents left. Grandfather left Scotland hoping for better in America. Through hard work he did. Not surprising I think he made the right decision and have a certain amount of disgust for British "Civilization". As I recall we had a revolution about that.
Well you turned out to be a bundle of laughs.The word bigot springs to mind.

[jmort]

"The word bigot springs to mind."


​If you randomly pick a word, then I suppose "bigot" is as good as any. But if one were to think about it, xenophobe would be more apt considering the source. But even that word is a miss, as the term implies an unreasonable dislike of the Euro-trash countries, when such a dislike seems rational, and well deserved.

[NavyVet1959]

The word bigot springs to mind.

Some might prefer the word "rotund"...

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Seems a split occurred in the gene pool. Subjects stayed, independents left. Grandfather left Scotland hoping for better in America. Through hard work he did. Not surprising I think he made the right decision and have a certain amount of disgust for British "Civilization". As I recall we had a revolution about that.

The British had one at just the same time, on the western side of the Atlantic, one of a long series of which the last would have been useless without the others. I think it was principally the assignment of so much power to the American monarch that prevented the statue of George Washington (whose closest living relative is probably Queen Elizabeth II) joining those of Oliver Cromwell and General Smuts in Parliament Square.

On other boards there is a lively appreciation among right-wing Americans that some person named Trump may be able to force his party to make him monarch for four yearsagainst their will, by a threat to split the vote. In the UK that is impossible, as a Prime Minister is obliged to resign if his party chooses a new leader, and there is no question of a split between his office and the parliamentary majority. We also see, on these boards, a hatred of the political leadership which is unmatched in Europe, except possibly the Balkans. Shouldn't people with an allegedly better system and better safeguards for freedom feel better about it?

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Zounds! It seems like shockingly bad manners to invite these fellows to discuss their gun laws, and then when they do, beat them up. :oops:

[Ballistics in Scotland]

"The word bigot springs to mind."


​If you randomly pick a word, then I suppose "bigot" is as good as any. But if one were to think about it, xenophobe would be more apt considering the source. But even that word is a miss, as the term implies an unreasonable dislike of the Euro-trash countries, when such a dislike seems rational, and well deserved.

Yes, this is about the stage in the discussion when the word Euro-trash comes out. It must have been a disappointing time when the Jews and the blacks got out of your reach. We are still left with the contradiction between needing guns because they keep you safe, when you are less safe.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Zounds! It seems like shockingly bad manners to invite these fellows to discuss their gun laws, and then when they do, beat them up. :oops:

I would have put it no more strongly than chew their ankles, or inflict a tiresome itch.

[robg]

I don't know where ballistics gets his idea we like politicians here .I despise most of them and trust none.most people are not that gullible.

[Mal Paso]

Well you turned out to be a bundle of laughs.The word bigot springs to mind.

Since when are Personality Characteristics a race?

I am the grandson of a rebel. Trading Freedom for Security is wrong in my mind.

I don't feel superior because my ancestor had the bug to leave but I share his genetic makeup and cultural background. Those that left their home country were more risk tolerant, liked Less Supervision.

I like Less Supervision.

You know it could be that the Brits who stayed at home were willing to get along with each other and those that left couldn't.;)

[fatelk]

I don't know why you all are getting on BiS for his European perspective. Maybe he represents a European outlook, or not, I don't know, but everything I've read from him sounds exactly like some American-as-can-be "progressives" that I know.

Don't blame those views on Europe, plenty of Americans think the same way. As to Europeans, I may not agree with the politics, but there are plenty of good folks over there, just like anywhere.

[Artful]

Just a little news
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6580063/Violent-foreign-criminals-are-entering-the-UK.html


Killer migrants shock as violent criminals enter UK

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02442/01_08012902_4d8f43_2442297a.jpg
NEARLY 800 foreigners arrested in Britain since 2012 were killers, rapists or child abusers in their homeland, police revealed.
Experts fear many more have settled in the UK due to rules on free movement in Europe.
In addition, police checked the homeland backgrounds of fewer than half the 190,000 foreign criminals arrested in Britain last year.

According to figures, 250 people convicted of murder and manslaughter at home have been arrested since 2012 — 92 from Romania, 41 from Poland and 35 from Lithuania.
Alice Gross, from Hanwell, West London, was last year killed by Latvian builder Arnis Zalkalns, who moved to the UK after serving a jail sentence for killing his wife.
There were 381 rapists — 141 from Romania, and 120 from Poland — and 147 child sex offenders, 58 of them Poles and 36 Lithuanians.
The figures emerged from a Freedom of Information Act request to ACRO, the Criminal Records Office.
Criminal justice expert Harry Fletcher, of the Digital Trust, said some EU member states lacked the “will” to check their own criminals — “perhaps as they think it is easier to export the problem”. He said: “We need a system where there is a duty to disclose convictions on entry.”
He said Britain should improve monitoring and checking of serious criminals. Ukip MEP Diane James said keeping free movement in the EU was “perpetuating the problem”.

Case study 1


http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02442/02_08030828_fef354_2442011a.jpg
George-Josif Blaj throttled his victim SWNS
ROMANIAN sex attacker George-Josif Blaj raped a woman at knifepoint weeks after arriving in Britain.
Blaj, 22, throttled his victim, 24, after breaking into her home in Northampton. He battered her with a spade when she screamed.
The drug abuser was admitted to the UK despite serving four years in Romania for rape and robbery. He was caged for 15 years.
Case study 2


http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02442/03_08030828_050d81_2442363a.jpg
Pawel Honc ruthlessly beat-up Paul Kohler PA: Press Association
FOUR Polish burglars who left lecturer Paul Kohler “unrecognisable” in a savage beating had convictions for violence at home.
Mr Kohler, 55, suffered multiple facial injuries at Wimbledon, South West London. His wife was also threatened.
Pawel Honc, 23, and Mariusz Tomaszewski, 32, got 19 years. Dawid Tychon, 29, and Oskar Pawlowichz, 29, got 13 years.

And some older news from 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html


Burglary victims attacked in their own home once every 30 minutesBy JAMES SLACK FOR THE DAILY MAIL (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=James+Slack+for+the+Daily+Mail)
UPDATED: 04:45 EST, 23 January 2010

A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes.


The shocking statistic exposes for the first time the epidemic of terrifying intruder confrontations taking place in Britain.
It will intensify demands for householders to be given greater protection if they use force to protect themselves and their family against a burglar.


In the wake of the case of Munir Hussain, who was jailed and later freed for beating a raider, ministers insisted it was extremely rare for a person to find themselves in trouble with the police for fighting back against a burglar.


But with householders suffering violence on 23,000 occasions last year, campaigners say the case for a change to the law is growing ever stronger.
The Tories, who compiled the figures, have given a manifesto commitment to review the law, which currently allows a householder to respond with 'reasonable force'.


Under one option being considered, a burglary victim who took on an intruder could only be prosecuted if they used 'grossly disproportionate force'.


Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'These figures are an alarming indication of the culture of violence that has built up in our society.


'It just goes to show how important it is that we change the law to give proper protection to householders who defend themselves and their families against a violent intruder in their homes.


'The Government promised to change the law, but then didn't. We will.'


The figures emerged in an analysis of official crime statistics. Last year, the number of domestic burglaries recorded by police in England and Wales rose for the first time in six years, from 280,694 in 2007-08 to 284,427.


The British Crime Survey provides more information on the nature of burglaries than those recorded in police crime figures.
According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. That translates one every ten minutes. In other cases, either no one was at home or the victim was at home but unaware they were being burgled and did not see the offender.


Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/22/article-1245417-07F10E6E000005DC-33_468x612.jpg


Businessman Munir Hussain was jailed and later freed for beating a burglar armed with a knife



It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases, up from 33 per cent in 2002-03 - the first year for which figures are available.
By combing the two research reports, the Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 - 20 per cent - of burglaries.


Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder.


Earlier this week, the Government dismissed calls for a change in the law to give better legal protection for people using force against burglars.


Solicitor General Vera Baird said it was clear householders were entitled to defend themselves and their property and the law was working.


She said the case of Mr Hussain 'hadn't really impacted' on the 'very good advice' available to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr Hussain, 53, from High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, was released on Wednesday after the country's most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, said he had suffered extreme provocation during a burglary. Lord Judge also reduced Mr Hussain's brother Tokeer' 39-month jail term to two years.


The men were jailed last month after being found guilty at Reading Crown Court of

causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Walid Salem.


• Home Office figures showed 64,200 house break-ins were carried out between July and September last year - down from 69,500 in the middle of 2008.


However, this still means 176 families every day are burglary victims.


It's funny, I seems to be have a bit of a problem locating current statistic's for Crime in the UK.
Any help would be appreciated.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Well you turned out to be a bundle of laughs.The word bigot springs to mind.

In all fairness, nowhere did you say it was a characteristic of a race.

People emigrate for all kinds of reasons. Australia has done remarkably well - measurable by only the irreducible minimum of contempt for its government - even in its early days when the bulk of the population were transported convicts, let out on licence. The British Empire had a long tradition of emigrants who, after lapses in conduct, received an allowance from the family, subject to an undertaking never to set foot in the British Isles again. I frequently think of the custom of primitive tribes around the world, of boring holes in one another's skull for no apparent therapeutic reason, and most likely as some kind of initiation ceremony. They'd hardly admit to discovering, after that, that the Mysteries were all a load of baloney, would they? No, they'd say "Look at the good it did me, and don't you wish you'd had yours done?"

[Col4570]

Entry No48 endorses my entry No22.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It's funny, I seems to be have a bit of a problem locating current statistic's for Crime in the UK.
Any help would be appreciated.

It would? I'd have thought you would reject the statistics for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Ola]

Seems a split occurred in the gene pool. Subjects stayed, independents left.

So, for some miraculous reason the oldest son is always genetically a subject and younger sons are independents?:razz:
That's how it went here: The oldest son inherited the land and the younger ones got nothing. So many of them travelled to US.

[jmort]

The Crime rate for the U.S. is less than half than that of the U.K. and less than the Euro-Trash countries as a whole.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

I will take the freedom we have here, and the far lower crime rate. Not sure if BIS is a man or woman, but it will be ironic when the Euro-Caliphate is established and if BIS is forced to wear a burka.

[Col4570]

The Crime rate for the U.S. is less than half than that of the U.K. and less than the Euro-Trash countries as a whole.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

I will take the freedom we have here, and the far lower crime rate. Not sure if BIS is a man or woman, but it will be ironic when the Euro-Caliphate is established and if BIS is forced to wear a burka.

Check out the overall figures.

[Ola]

Iceland has MORE crime than any other country in the world???? It is a country that usually has ZERO homicides / per year..

And Sweden is next?

What kind of a ridiculous statistics is this?

[NavyVet1959]

Iceland has MORE crime than any other country in the world???? It is a country that usually has ZERO homicides / per year..

And Sweden is next?

What kind of a ridiculous statistics is this?

They must include snowball fights in the statistics... :)

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The Crime rate for the U.S. is less than half than that of the U.K. and less than the Euro-Trash countries as a whole.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

I will take the freedom we have here, and the far lower crime rate. Not sure if BIS is a man or woman, but it will be ironic when the Euro-Caliphate is established and if BIS is forced to wear a burka.

A bit of desperation here, I think. I wouldn't want you to think that I value your good opinion any less than you do mine.

[perotter]

It would? I'd have thought you would reject the statistics for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

There are other crimes besides homicides.

[perotter]

....

It's funny, I seems to be have a bit of a problem locating current statistic's for Crime in the UK.
Any help would be appreciated.


Check out the overall figures.

The overall violent crime rate in the UK was 150% greater than in the US for 2011.

For the UK:
"In 2010/11, 31 people per 1000 interviewed reported being a victim of violent crime in the 12 preceding months."

For the US:
"22.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2011"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

[perotter]

Crime aside. Thanks BiS and Col4570 for answering in about requirements about gun ownership and self defense in the UK.

Especially the self defense information, as that is new information to me. Your's is about what we had here in Minnesota from about 1940-1992.

FWIW a jury around 1992 in a Whitebear Lake case basically gave us stand your ground with whatever amount of force one had at hand.

[Col4570]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-pitbull-dog-found-raped-193553480.html?nhp=1

[Artful]

It would? I'd have thought you would reject the statistics for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Actually I wasn't looking for intentional homicides but violent encounters with criminals in the UK
or subsets thereof. But thanks for trying to help.

[Artful]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-pitbull-dog-found-raped-193553480.html?nhp=1
My that quite the sicko story from Thurston County, Washington.
Makes this story from Coventry and Warwickshire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-35327395) look pedestrian
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35372154


not to mention your Footballer scandal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3507418/Shamed-footballer-Adam-Johnson-leaves-home-time-ahead-sentencing.html

or your interesting .Gov laundry
http://www.theweek.co.uk/59321/former-mi5-chief-involved-in-child-sex-abuse-cover-up

http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/sexual-abuse-of-pigs-and-other-farm-animals-is-nothing-new/

None of which of course has anything to really do with UK requirements in owning firearms or the use of weapons for self defense in the UK or the Violence you might encounter with criminals out doing their business in today's UK.

[Col4570]

I hope in each case the perps receive the full force of the law.I also hope the B....rd who did that to the Dog gets his just deserts.As for the tit for tat from some contributors it is indicative of the lack of ability to hold civilised debate.

[Artful]

civ·i·lize
ˈsivəˌlīz/
verb
past tense: civilised; past participle: civilised

polite and well-mannered.
adjective: civilized; adjective: civilised
"such an affront to civilized behavior will no longer be tolerated"


synonyms:

polite (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+polite&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIKjAA), courteous (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+courteous&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIKzAA), well mannered (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+well+mannered&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoILDAA), civil (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+civil&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoILTAA), gentlemanly (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+gentlemanly&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoILjAA), ladylike (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+ladylike&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoILzAA), mannerly (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+mannerly&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIMDAA); cultured (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+cultured&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIMjAA), cultivated (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+cultivated&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIMzAA),
refined (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+refined&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoINDAA), polished (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+polished&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoINTAA), sophisticated (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+sophisticated&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoINjAA);
enlightened (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+enlightened&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoINzAA),educated (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+educated&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIODAA), advanced (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+advanced&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIOTAA), developed (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+developed&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2_Kit-LLAhUE5WMKHafZDP8Q_SoIOjAA)
"his civilized behavior"






de·bate
dəˈbāt/
noun


a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.


synonyms:
discussion (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+discussion&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIHjAA), discourse (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+discourse&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIHzAA), parley (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+parley&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIIDAA), dialogue (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+dialogue&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIITAA); argument (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+argument&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIIzAA), counterargument (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+counterargument&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIJDAA),dispute (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+dispute&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIJTAA), wrangle (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+wrangle&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIJjAA), war of words;
argumentation (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+argumentation&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIJzAA), disputation (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+disputation&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIKDAA),dissension (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+dissension&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIKTAA), disagreement (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+disagreement&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIKjAA), contention (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+contention&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoIKzAA), conflict (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+conflict&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoILDAA);
negotiations, talks;
informal confab (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+confab&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoILTAA), powwow (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1120&bih=639&q=define+powwow&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ5-_7tuLLAhVHxmMKHXoKBVoQ_SoILjAA)
"a debate on the reforms"





Seemingly almost at odds with itself by definition

[Col4570]

Thumbcockers original question,well laid out and valid seems to have exactly turned out to be a urination competition that he did not want it to be.The bottom line is that if one has to defend themselves or loved ones from harm then at that very moment we would do what is necessary.I suppose the differences surrounding our two societies in respect of defence have evolved by the prevailing types of crime predominantly in that country.As you see from Artfuls entry we in the UK are not immune from major crime.There has been a definite increase in crime of all categories driven by the Drug culture and it does occasionaly spill over into the law abiding community.In 1974 I worked in the USA for six months and rarely got into conflict with anyone,in fact I found the people to be extremely interested in aspects of UK life.I certainly did not detect any anti Brit vibes as I do on this site.The Job we did was a rough tough one From Baton Rouge to Philadephia and in between.The Guys where from a cross section of US Engineering and we covered many miles in those Chevrolet Pickups.Getting back to the subject matter,the results of self defence are subject to interpretation by the courts on an individual basis but one cannot have the reason to hold firearms as for protective purposes.Happy Easter folks.

[Artful]

Happy Easter to you as well. Be Safe and have a blessed rest of the year.

[blackthorn]

Colt4570---you said---"In 1974 I worked in the USA for six months and rarely got into conflict with anyone,in fact I found the people to be extremely interested in aspects of UK life.I certainly did not detect any anti Brit vibes as I do on this site."

I do not think there is "anti Brit" vibes here, rather there is "anti Brit gun law" vibes. I live in Canada and while our gun laws are not as draconian as yours, we are well on the way to emulating them! Unfortunately, in today's world the idiot laws of the so called "international community" have detrimental effects on everybody. In Canada we get stomped on by the idiot Liberals (with the help of the incompetent NDP) when it comes to gun laws and then occasionally we elect a Conservative Government and we get some of the garbage laws rolled back. The problem is that even the Conservatives do not have the balls to really fix our problem, so we get the old three steps forward and two steps back scenario. This means that we lose a little bit more freedom that we never recover. Our friends in the US have benefit of their second amendment (at least for now) and they are very protective in its regard (rightly so!). We do not have anything that even comes close to that wonderful piece of legislation----but we should have! There should be NO compromise when it comes to our rights. That said, we should also be prepared to be held accountable when/if we misuse that freedom. E.g.--I should be able to own and keep ANY firearm in my home, I should be able to legally carry that firearm wherever I go, whenever I like BUT if I use it inappropriately I should be held accountable. I have come to the conclusion that (at least in Canada) if you want the full protection of the law---first you need to break it! Then you have all kinds of "rights" including free legal services that will help you get out so you can do it again. From several posts to this thread, I have to conclude that some here have become "conditioned" to think that a criminal is entitled to do whatever he/she wants and we should call 911 and hope for the best. WRONG! If some piece of scum breaks into my home I consider myself at risk of losing my life and I will respond accordingly. This attitude has zip to do with the value of whatever he/she came to steal but has everything to do with the safety of my family and myself! I think I will stop here before I say something that will get this post yanked. Best wishes for a great day to everyone.

[robg]

I have not noticed any anti Brit feeling on this forum.but then I don't think the UK is perfect. Our gun laws are rubbish ,but you all know that.

[Artful]

Anti-British Col4570, Not that I am aware of
- I will admit to not suffering Muslim Appologists, Liberals and Fools well.

You have to understand that our liberals/progressives/socialists hold up the UK, Australia, and other formerly Gun Cultures now rabidly growing Anti-Gun cultures as examples of what they want to turn the USA into. So when I see things that in my mind are morally wrong like prosecuting someone for defense of home and family from criminals - I rail against that.

Not that I have been successful in changing many liberals into conservatives, but I have made some stop and think about what they have said to me and when they can't defend their actions in a rational/logical argument/Debate they have at least quit spouting their feel good idea of gun control in front of me.

[dtknowles]

The vibe is "how can you in Briton and the rest of Europe let your governments restrict your natural rights?" "don't you feel you should have opposed these left leaning governments more vigorously?"

There is a strong anti-socialist bias here for good reason.

Tim

[jmort]

^^^ That is a good point, as well as the hatred and gratuitous bashing of our members/Country by BS in Scotland.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I do not think there is "anti Brit" vibes here, rather there is "anti Brit gun law" vibes. I live in Canada and while our gun laws are not as draconian as yours, we are well on the way to emulating them! .

You think so? Here are a couple of things that got said when someone brought all his good taste and intellectual powers to arguing that the US isn't a more aggressive society than the UK:


"The word bigot springs to mind."


​If you randomly pick a word, then I suppose "bigot" is as good as any. But if one were to think about it, xenophobe would be more apt considering the source. But even that word is a miss, as the term implies an unreasonable dislike of the Euro-trash countries, when such a dislike seems rational, and well deserved.


The Crime rate for the U.S. is less than half than that of the U.K. and less than the Euro-Trash countries as a whole.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

I will take the freedom we have here, and the far lower crime rate. Not sure if BIS is a man or woman, but it will be ironic when the Euro-Caliphate is established and if BIS is forced to wear a burka.

Instead it underlines the millstone American hunters and target shooters carry around their necks: the others for whom gun ownership merges with racism and sexual self-esteem. This is of growing importance, for they aren't just saying it in their redneck bars or klaverns any more. It is out there online when they have sobered up.

Canada is a case in point, since it has high-crime areas, and yet a far lower murder rate than the other side of a frontier so porous that guns can't possibly be made unavailable to criminals. The difference lies in the average Canadian not much wanting to kill anybody. In the case of the average criminal Canadian (or Briton, or western European), I believe this is mostly because he knows the average person doesn't much want to kill him, and there isn't a minority the prospect gives the sort of dreams unfit to be mentioned here.

Of course a lot in British gun control is unfair or useless, even though it lets me have any firearm I want, and use it in the ways I want. It could be improved on, but very often it is, in an inconspicuous but ongoing process of undoing, de facto, what the antis think they have won. What kind of any government's legislation on important aspects of personal life is ever really acceptable to everyone? But it is important to realize that it comes from attitudes which keep us safer than guns do you.

Much has been said about relative crime statistics, including Wikipedia pages which say, like any criminal statistician, that it is difficult to make comparisons between different countries. Different legislations have quite different standards of what makes a crime and what makes one reported, while different communities differ in what is worth reporting, and what is just social intercourse. The US Department of Justice, for example, maintains two statistical systems, with startling differences between the two for the principal crimes of violence - and that is for the same country. The crimes that matter for the purposes of gun control are those of shooting people, or of using the nearest substitute deadly weapon available. A significant point is that the UK hasn't had a government minister assassinated since 1812, and that was thought to be a throwback from an earlier age.

[robg]

How do you have any gun you want when we can't have pistols ,semiauto rifles, revolvers etc.laws are only obeyed by the law abiding.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Because I'm not you, and different people want different things. I never wanted a semiautomatic rifle in the three decades before they became illegal, and I am only interested in cartridge revolvers from the point of view of technology and history. I have some ten or twelve dating from the 1860s to 1939, as totally uncontrolled antiques on the government's list.before The local licencing authorities admire them greatly, and know I have dies etc. which I used before the ban, and abroad, but I have declined the suggestion that I lodge some of them in an approved shooting centre for use.

[dtknowles]

You think so? ................ The crimes that matter for the purposes of gun control are those of shooting people, or of using the nearest substitute deadly weapon available. .................

I suggest you reconsider that statement. You are only considering the use of guns in the negative context. Gun control does more to take guns away from the law abiding that it does to take guns away from criminals. Guns in the hands of the law abiding prevent crimes you say we don't need to consider in evaluating Gun Control laws. Your logic is flawed.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Because I'm not you, and different people want different things. I never wanted a semiautomatic rifle in the three decades before they became illegal, and I am only interested in cartridge revolvers from the point of view of technology and history. I have some ten or twelve dating from the 1860s to 1939, as totally uncontrolled antiques on the government's list.before The local licencing authorities admire them greatly, and know I have dies etc. which I used before the ban, and abroad, but I have declined the suggestion that I lodge some of them in an approved shooting centre for use.

Your point of view is very self centered. Should everyone be happy with what makes you happy or might they need something different to be happy. Do you seek uniformity of interest or diversity of interest.

What if I was British and interested in collecting the battle rifles of the major armed powers of the world, learn how they operate and how accurate and effective they are. Actually even an American can't do this legally as some of these weapons are too new to be registered for private ownership.

Freedom vs. Socialism. The idea that some of us have to give up our natural rights so that the greater population as a whole can have some margin improvement in their security and some false sense of security is an evil doctrine. Nanny state, Socialism, protect the weak at the expense of the strong.

I know that you believe in Natural Selection so you surely can understand that this kind of Socialism weakens society has a whole.

Tim

[Artful]

Your point of view is very self centered. Should everyone be happy with what makes you happy or might they need something different to be happy. Do you seek uniformity of interest or diversity of interest.

What if I was British and interested in collecting the battle rifles of the major armed powers of the world, learn how they operate and how accurate and effective they are. Actually even an American can't do this legally as some of these weapons are too new to be registered for private ownership.

Tim

Well isn't that the view of the progressive left Tim?

Ah, but isn't it good to know that no restriction of weapons will ever be placed on two occupations - the criminal can have anything he finds and the Law Enforcement Officer - I'm leaving out the military because they have relinquished some of their effective weapons due to treaties between countries.

Your security at UK airport armed with German MP5 weapons
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/11/article-0-1F91A33200000578-942_638x410.jpg

Your Criminals armed with SMG
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/uzi-machine-gun-found-speke-3571941
http://i4.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article3661907.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/uzi.jpg
Detectives were today quizzing five men and a woman after an Uzi machine gun and a stash of ammunition was seized in south Liverpool.
Officers from Knowsley's Neighbourhood Support Team stopped a car in Higher Road, Halewood, at 12.20am today.
They arrested a 21-year-old man from Speke and a 34-year-old man from Old Swan on suspicion of going equipped for theft.

going equipped for theft - what is that having a screwdriver or a pry bar or just having hands if your a known pickpocket?

Your Criminals armed with Russian Technology
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165531/Its-wild-wild-West-Midlands-Homemade-gun-Uzis-Ak47s-make-huge-haul-firearms-seized-police-just-year.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/27/article-0-13CF5BDB000005DC-637_634x434.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/27/article-2165531-13CF5C02000005DC-329_634x934.jpg
Oh, wait they don't seem to care about pedigree - just ability to shoot

[Artful]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03XEUPfD0qM

[NavyVet1959]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03XEUPfD0qM

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers would have known how to handle something like that...

[Col4570]

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/8c28a4c9246cc37ea5b8c49ab/images/505e1fb3-c70f-46b3-a9d0-13c51a6d7fe6.jpg

[Col4570]

Just had a report from the MLAGB stating that as from April 1st all applications for Firearms and Shotgun Licences are subject to Medical reports from the applicants MD for any mental abnormalities.

[Col4570]

http://mlagb.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c28a4c9246cc37ea5b8c49ab&id=54b7e2c20a&e=4a18f0332d
Here it is.

[Artful]

So the GP has to answer about...


Relevant medical conditions are:-


Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by trauma
Suicidal thoughts or self harm
Depression or anxiety
Dementia
Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness
A personality disorder
A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's or Huntington's diseases, or epilepsy
Alcohol or drug abuse
Any other mental or physical condition which might affect your safe possession of firearms or shotguns.

If the person they attested wasn't affected by any of these conditions did something unlawful
what would happen to the GP's license?

[Ola]

The vibe is "how can you in Briton and the rest of Europe let your governments restrict your natural rights?" "don't you feel you should have opposed these left leaning governments more vigorously?"

We have this thing called Democracy. The majority wants to restrict firearms, so firearms are restricted.

You also need to understand the profound difference we have. Here owning firearms are not considered "natural right".

[dtknowles]

We have this thing called Democracy. The majority wants to restrict firearms, so firearms are restricted.

You also need to understand the profound difference we have. Here owning firearms are not considered "natural right".

I know that our governments are different and ours here sometimes does not act in complete compliance with its founding principals.

One of the founding principals of the U.S. government was rules to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

Are there any principals in Finland that could attributed to "natural laws?"

I would not want to take the "natural law" thing to an extreme as many Socialists think the sharing the wealth is a "natural law"

Owning Firearms is not the "natural law" it is having the ability to effectively defend yourself.

Tim

[Ola]

"Having the ability to effectively defend yourself" is definitely NOT part of the "Constitutional rights" of Finland.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Finland#Fundamental_provisions_and _basic_right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Finland#Fundamental_provisions_and _basic_rights)s

"Fundamental provisions and basic rights

...The provisions for constitutional rights closely mirror the European convention on human rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_convention_on_human_rights), including the educational, social and economic rights in addition to political liberties. The international human rights obligations of Finland are set as the highest legal norm of the law, even above the constitution."

[robg]

Bs in Scotland is the reason the government here passed all these anti gun laws .he doesn't want one so it didn't matter .when they ban his toys then he will understand what a naïve fool he is.

[Ola]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Article 2 - lifeArticle 2 protects the right of every person to his or her life. The right to life extends only to human beings, not to non-human animals,[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-korff-10) or to "legal persons" such as corporations.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-korff-10) In Evans v United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_v_United_Kingdom), the Court ruled that the right to life does not extend to a human embryo. In Vo v France,[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-11) the Court declined to extend the right to life to an unborn child, while stating that "it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention".[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-12)
Article 2 - The right for life - The right to preserve life, - Take life to Preserve life.
The Court has ruled that states have three main duties under Article 2:


a duty to refrain from unlawful killing,
a duty to investigate suspicious deaths and,
in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-13)

The first paragraph of the article contains an exception for lawful executions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment), although this exception has largely been superseded by Protocols 6 and 13. Protocol 6 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime, while Protocol 13 extends the prohibition to all circumstances. (For more on Protocols 6 and 13, see below (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Protocol_13_-_complete_abolition_of_death_penalty).)
The second paragraph of Article 2 provides that death resulting from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary".
Signatory states to the Convention can only derogate from the rights contained in Article 2 for deaths which result from lawful acts of war.
The European Court of Human Rights did not rule upon the right to life until 1995, when in McCann v. United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_v._United_Kingdom)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-14) it ruled that the exception contained in the second paragraph does not constitute situations when it is permitted to kill, but situations where it is permitted to use force which might result in the deprivation of life.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-15)

[perotter]

We have this thing called Democracy. The majority wants to restrict firearms, so firearms are restricted.
......

More commonly called "tyranny of the majority". But properly called ochlocracy.

[dtknowles]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Article 2 - life

Article 2 protects the right of every person to his or her life. The right to life extends only to human beings, not to non-human animals,[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-korff-10) or to "legal persons" such as corporations.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-korff-10) In Evans v United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_v_United_Kingdom), the Court ruled that the right to life does not extend to a human embryo. In Vo v France,[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-11) the Court declined to extend the right to life to an unborn child, while stating that "it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention".[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-12)
Article 2 - The right for life - The right to preserve life, - Take life to Preserve life.
The Court has ruled that states have three main duties under Article 2:


a duty to refrain from unlawful killing,
a duty to investigate suspicious deaths and,
in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-13)

The first paragraph of the article contains an exception for lawful executions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment), although this exception has largely been superseded by Protocols 6 and 13. Protocol 6 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime, while Protocol 13 extends the prohibition to all circumstances. (For more on Protocols 6 and 13, see below (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Protocol_13_-_complete_abolition_of_death_penalty).)
The second paragraph of Article 2 provides that death resulting from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary".
Signatory states to the Convention can only derogate from the rights contained in Article 2 for deaths which result from lawful acts of war.
The European Court of Human Rights did not rule upon the right to life until 1995, when in McCann v. United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_v._United_Kingdom)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-14) it ruled that the exception contained in the second paragraph does not constitute situations when it is permitted to kill, but situations where it is permitted to use force which might result in the deprivation of life.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#cite_note-15)

Well, it could be worse, at least you are allowed to defend yourself if you can abstract the wording that seems intended to apply to states to have it apply to individuals as well. Of course it does not matter if they deprive you of the tools of an effective defense. Take a life to save a life but it would not seem clear that you could kill someone who only intended to cripple or rape you.

Tim

[perotter]

Bs in Scotland is the reason the government here passed all these anti gun laws .he doesn't want one so it didn't matter .when they ban his toys then he will understand what a naïve fool he is.

Fortunately here his type of gun owner going the way of the dodo bird.

[Thumbcocker]

"What type of government have you given us Dr. Franklin?" "A republic Madam; if you can keep it."

[Ola]

Well, it could be worse, at least you are allowed to defend yourself if you can abstract the wording that seems intended to apply to states to have it apply to individuals as well. Of course it does not matter if they deprive you of the tools of an effective defense. Take a life to save a life but it would not seem clear that you could kill someone who only intended to cripple or rape you.

Tim Well, the "No more than absolutely necessary" -part seems to apply also to individuals. Here killing someone will almost certainly get you convicted to jail. No matter what are the circumstances.

Let's put is this way. In Europe killing someone, for any reason, is discouraged.

[NavyVet1959]

One should always properly dispose of any bodies one produces.

Do they sell lime in the UK? It's very useful in preventing the maggots and smell from decomp.